[G1911]

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

I've stated it several times and will state it several more in this post. The bill purports to set curriculum, but it provides no detail about what is in the approved curriculum beyond chapter headings.

Have you ever read any other education bill? I'm guessing the answer is no. They are not usually 10,000+ page behemoths stipulating every single possible thing that can be said.

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

I am sitting here absolutely amazed. Not only are you telling me I am saying something I am not saying, you actually provided a direct quote from me that doesn't say what you say it does. I believe you are engaging in good faith, so I have to believe there is a fundamental disconnect here. In a possibly apocryphal story, Vince Lombardi once gathered his team together after a particularly bad loss, held up a ball and said "Gentlemen, this is a football. Stop me if I am going too fast." I feel like I need to be a bit pedantic here.

A ban is an "official or legal prohibition." A ban says *these* books cannot be in your classroom. What we are seeing is educators, because they have no clear guidance, voluntarily (albeit reluctantly) pulling anything even tangentially related to the topic off the shelf.

I'm amazed your second paragraph says it again after the first so angrily denies it and your original comment lol. These Jackie and Roberto books, the subject of this thread, were not banned. They were not removed by teachers. The district said they were never on the shelf in the first place. It is impossible to remove what is not there. You can just make things up as much as you want, though.

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

Here again, you seem to be working from a completely different language than I am. Heckler's veto:

In the United States, a heckler's veto is a situation in which a party who disagrees with a speaker's message is able to unilaterally trigger events that result in the speaker being silenced. For example, a heckler can disrupt a speech to the point that the speech is canceled.

In the legal sense, a heckler's veto occurs when the speaker's right is curtailed or restricted by the government in order to prevent a reacting party's behavior. The common example is the termination of a speech or demonstration in the interest of maintaining the public peace based on the anticipated negative reaction of someone opposed to that speech or demonstration.

School board meetings are unaffected in any way by this bill. That is an actual fact. This, of course, is why you cannot point to anything actually in the bill for this, and just screech a party narrative. This bill, factually, does not adjust school board meetings in any way, shape, or form. You appear to be working from a dictionary you have just completely made up lol. Did you actually read the bill? I might even agree with you on a bill proposing reforms to school board meetings, but this bill is not that bill and I cannot figure out how a reasonable person would think it is after reading the actual text.

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

Bull Connor wasn't a white supremacist because he suffered from male pattern baldness. He was a white supremacist because he was white. Writing a law that makes stating the obvious legally untenable is absurd and I struggle to understand how you can't see that.

"Person X is [insert bad thing] because of their race" is racist. My personal opinion is we should not teach that to children, because I think racism is illogical and as a liberal, immoral and reprehensible. If you want to argue that we should teach racism, or racism only against a specific race, as policy, do so. I have seen no evidence that a person possesses a particular idea or character trait because of their race and does not make their own decisions or have will. Bull Connor and many like him made their choice, others of all races made the opposite and fought for Civil Rights even when it wasn't their rights. If Connor was a terrible racist because of his race, then everyone white would have been a Bull Connor. The historical record makes clear they did not all make that same choice and this claim is absurd.

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

Out here in the real world what this bill is doing is creating confusion, controversy, protest and, in a not-too-distant day, lawsuits. I mean look at what it is doing here where it is just a throwaway conversation between a bunch of bored greyheads. Out in real schools, it is a rolling disaster.

But everything to do with the actual topic that the bill purports to address.

There is little excuse for the confusion, as it takes less than 10 minutes to read and the people outraged continue to be unable to actually find anything in the bill to object too. So much so, that a reason based standard itself has to be dismissed in order to toe the party line here.

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

Woe be unto the first teacher that points out how various laws that are being passed today (probably even in Florida) are de facto racially discriminatory. Their life is about to get a whole lot more complicated.



Fathom this. Published yesterday.

Yet again, the bill does not bar a teacher from saying a bill is discriminatory, whatsoever. This is, for the 20th time or so, why you cannot cite anything in the bill when you make these things up and just throw a false claim out there as if it is true. I'm rather surprised there is apparently no counter-argument to this bill that is predicated on the actual content of the bill and not political fantasy.

This has nothing to do with race at all. According to this article, this book was removed after a complaint (which was not even actually filed) that it had a pornographic scene. Proponents of the book say it is a non-arousing rape scene. It's been a number of years since I've read it (I like Morrison), but incest, rape, and child molestation are an integral part of the story and its metaphor and I cannot fathom how it would be considered pornographic.

Pornography, what the article states is the reason, appears once in the bill:

320 1003.41. Instructional materials recommended by each reviewer
321 shall be, to the satisfaction of each reviewer, accurate,
322 objective, balanced, noninflammatory, current, free of
323 pornography and material prohibited under s. 847.012, and suited
324 to student needs and their ability to comprehend the material
325 presented. Reviewers shall consider for recommendation materials
326 developed for academically talented students, such as students
327 enrolled in advanced placement courses.

I see no way a reasonable person could read this book, consider it obscene pornography under 847, and thus subject to ban from a high school. The students protesting the ban will surely win out here, as the law clearly does not in fact ban this. I have no issue with the bill banning pornography from schools. I suppose it is good that of the 3 books named in this thread, 1 actually has been removed from a school and only 2 were complete fake news! This superintendent overreacted, clearly did not read the law, and will surely regret it.